Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Not sure where you got your dates from

Help me here, I need it, but I'm not sure what in that data I presented you are challenging: as others have pointed out, we are showing the same thing, you with dates, me with detail.

As you seem to be doubling down on your claim that Di Rocco and Pelaez were VPs to McQuaid at the same time are we to take it that that is your issue with them currently serving under Lappartient? Or do you have a different reason for why their presence is problematic? Could your view, perhaps, be coloured by criticisms levelled by a defeated and demoralised Cookson at one of the pair?

“It’s come down to politics and deals. I’m very surprised when you look at the results from the election for the management committee, at some of the people who were ignored, or who scored very lowly. I think you see someone like Renato di Rocco, whose contribution has been entirely negative over the last four years, who is one of the highest scorers. He has already been very critical of me apparently but frankly his influence on the management committee over the last four years has been entirely negative. Unfortunately Renato has decided he is against me and that appears to be something which aided and abetted this result."

(Di Rocco's most public beef with Cookson over the last four years was, if I recall correctly, the handling of the Astana situation in 2015, when Cookson ignored his Management Committee and unilaterally called for the team's licence to be withdrawn. Given the presence of Vincenzo Nibali on the team and given ties between Di Ricco's Italian federation and Astana's Kazakhstani one, Di Rocco disagreeing with Cookson was hardly a surprise.)

Finally, to repeat the question I asked earlier: if not these, then who? Is there anyone on the Management Committee who would, in your humble opinion, be fit for the role of Vice President?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got your dates from

Help me here, I need it, but I'm not sure what in that data I presented you are challenging: as others have pointed out, we are showing the same thing, you with dates, me with detail.

As you seem to be doubling down on your claim that Di Rocco and Pelaez were VPs to McQuaid at the same time are we to take it that that is your issue with them currently serving under Lappartient? Or do you have a different reason for why their presence is problematic? Could your view, perhaps, be coloured by criticisms levelled by a defeated and demoralised Cookson at one of the pair?

“It’s come down to politics and deals. I’m very surprised when you look at the results from the election for the management committee, at some of the people who were ignored, or who scored very lowly. I think you see someone like Renato di Rocco, whose contribution has been entirely negative over the last four years, who is one of the highest scorers. He has already been very critical of me apparently but frankly his influence on the management committee over the last four years has been entirely negative. Unfortunately Renato has decided he is against me and that appears to be something which aided and abetted this result."

(Di Rocco's most public beef with Cookson over the last four years was, if I recall correctly, the handling of the Astana situation in 2015, when Cookson ignored his Management Committee and unilaterally called for the team's licence to be withdrawn. Given the presence of Vincenzo Nibali on the team and given ties between Di Ricco's Italian federation and Astana's Kazakhstani one, Di Rocco disagreeing with Cookson was hardly a surprise.)

Finally, to repeat the question I asked earlier: if not these, then who? Is there anyone on the Management Committee who would, in your humble opinion, be fit for the role of Vice President?

Maybe Di Ricco was upset that Cookson had become Brailsford’s talking parrot?

Team Sky boss Sir Dave Brailsford has accused the new leadership at cycling's governing body of failing its first big test in the fight against doping.

The International Cycling Union (UCI) gave Tour de France winner Vincenzo Nibali's Astana team a licence to race this year despite five positive tests.

Many in the sport hoped new UCI president Brian Cookson would take a tougher line against serial offenders.

"The UCI governs this sport, so they need to deliver," said Brailsford, 50.

"Great leaders don't find excuses why they can't do something. Sometimes you've got to get over obstacles and find ways of doing things to get to a new place.

"If you're in charge, you have to have rules and the leadership skills to deliver a credible sport."

Brailsford added Team Sky would "play our role as much as we can".

Cookson was formerly in charge of British Cycling, where Brailsford spent 17 very successful years.

Cookson, the 63-year-old Lancastrian, became UCI president in September 2013, ousting controversial incumbent Pat McQuaid.

He presented himself as the best candidate to lead the sport away from its troubled history with drugs but his credentials as a reformer took a knock when Astana's World Tour licence was renewed last month.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got your dates from

Help me here, I need it, but I'm not sure what in that data I presented you are challenging: as others have pointed out, we are showing the same thing, you with dates, me with detail.

As you seem to be doubling down on your claim that Di Rocco and Pelaez were VPs to McQuaid at the same time are we to take it that that is your issue with them currently serving under Lappartient? Or do you have a different reason for why their presence is problematic? Could your view, perhaps, be coloured by criticisms levelled by a defeated and demoralised Cookson at one of the pair?

“It’s come down to politics and deals. I’m very surprised when you look at the results from the election for the management committee, at some of the people who were ignored, or who scored very lowly. I think you see someone like Renato di Rocco, whose contribution has been entirely negative over the last four years, who is one of the highest scorers. He has already been very critical of me apparently but frankly his influence on the management committee over the last four years has been entirely negative. Unfortunately Renato has decided he is against me and that appears to be something which aided and abetted this result."

(Di Rocco's most public beef with Cookson over the last four years was, if I recall correctly, the handling of the Astana situation in 2015, when Cookson ignored his Management Committee and unilaterally called for the team's licence to be withdrawn. Given the presence of Vincenzo Nibali on the team and given ties between Di Ricco's Italian federation and Astana's Kazakhstani one, Di Rocco disagreeing with Cookson was hardly a surprise.)

Finally, to repeat the question I asked earlier: if not these, then who? Is there anyone on the Management Committee who would, in your humble opinion, be fit for the role of Vice President?

Hardly anyone in the sport.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Madiot calls on Lappartient to honour his election promises on technological fraud:

Vous n'êtes donc pas pessimiste pour la suite ?
Non, je ne suis pas plus inquiet que ça. Chez les pros, il faut se donner les moyens de bien contrôler. David Lappartient (NDLR : le nouveau président de l'UCI) s'y est engagé. Il ne faut pas que ce ne soit qu'une promesse électorale. C'est relativement facile à régler. Mais il me semble essentiel de former des commissaires pour ces contrôles. Ça doit devenir un vrai métier. Après, chez les amateurs, ça se fera tout seul. Là, encore une fois, c'est un peu glauque. On parle d'un mec qui a été obligé d'appeler sa femme pour dire : je suis en garde à vue parce que j'ai un moteur dans mon vélo...

In English:

“I’m not overly worried about it. In the pros, we must have the means to carry out proper inspections. David Lappartient is on the case. This must not just be an electoral promise. It’s relatively easy to regulate, but it seems essential to me to train commissaires for these inspections. It must become a true occupation.”

The FFC - headed by Lappartient for eight years until six months ago - is also on his case, saying more needs to be done at both national and international levels:

The FFC pointed to the steps it has taken in the fight against mechanical doping – which include the use of thermal imaging cameras, bike inspections, and police involvement – but said a more coherent and comprehensive plan of attack needs to be drawn up.

“This confirmed instance of technological fraud only reinforces the FFC resolve to develop this type of action throughout our regions. Therefore, the FFC will rapidly put in face a consultation process with a view to establishing a plan of action. The FFC reckons that these actions must, as quickly as possible, be accompanied by other means of controls linked to the development of reliable and efficient technical solutions.

“The FFC, conscious that it cannot fight this major risk of fraud alone, calls on both the Department for Sport and the UCI in order to join together in devising a major plan of action that will allow us to fight against technological fraud, in top-level races but also – and maybe even as more of a priority – in the amateur ranks.

“What’s at stake,” Callot concluded, “is the credibility and future of the sport.”

How long will it take Lappartient to respond?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Remember when Cookson arrived, and there was this promise of transparency, and then the doping sanctions stopped getting announced, started slipping out in occasionally updated PDFs buried in the bowels of the UCI's website? Guess what? Nothing's changed.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Remember when Cookson arrived, and there was this promise of transparency, and then the doping sanctions stopped getting announced, started slipping out in occasionally updated PDFs buried in the bowels of the UCI's website? Guess what? Nothing's changed.

I doubt anyone is surprised.

 

[Craigee]

But there is no mechanical doping and never has been according to a couple here.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Remember when Cookson arrived, and there was this promise of transparency, and then the doping sanctions stopped getting announced, started slipping out in occasionally updated PDFs buried in the bowels of the UCI's website? Guess what? Nothing's changed.

I doubt anyone is surprised.

It's been less than 3 weeks...

Still, the clock is ticking. Hopefully we see some action soon.

 

[Tonton]

My first stance is that he means well...but money talks and compromise...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

This next one looks easy but has the potential to be problematic:

IMPROVE THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF RACES

The issue?

It is clear however that some races, particularly those with multiple stages, have become tedious, which is leading to a decrease in fan interest and fewer television viewers. The misuse of certain new technologies may have had an impact on this issue by making the outcome of some of our races too predictable.

Let me hear you say it: ban race radios! Ban power metres! Or as he puts it:

ENCOURAGE INNOVATION AND THE USE OF MORE CONDUCIVE NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN CYCLING

(Bring bank the blackboards!)

Could Lappartient + ASO have found an ally in the fight against power meters? Bert:

“The earpiece restricts invention less than the power meter, which I’d eliminate from use competition,” Contador told Marca. “If you’re going up a climb and you know that you can’t go over 400 Watts and Sky are at the front of the peloton going at 400 Watts, you don’t dare to attack because you’ll blow up inside two kilometres. But if you don’t see the numbers, your sensations might lead you to attack. Riders block themselves when they see the numbers, especially on gradients of six or seven per cent.”

We do, of course, have to recognise that the Spaniard is only saying this after retiring and it does seem like a rather obvious dig at his nemesis (Bert strikes me as the sort of evil *** who'd have a nemesis). Or an attempt to make nice to ASO and hope for a post-retirement gig on the Vuelta.

Twitter/Strava personality Phil Gaimon seems to be in disagreement (he's got a book to plug, I guess):

When all you do is race a bike, you can 100% feel when you're over/under threshold. This whole debate is ridiculous. Powermeters don't make racing boring. The general progress of sport mixed with skewed budgets did that.

 

[veganrob]

I don't agree with the ban on power meters, but I would like to see how racing without team radios would affect the racing. I think it would be more exciting and spontaneous.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

I don't agree with the ban on power meters, but I would like to see how racing without team radios would affect the racing. I think it would be more exciting and spontaneous.

I come from a time before radios. It was fantastic!

John Swanson

 

[Netserk]

Racing was also better before helmets were mandatory.

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Racing was also better before helmets were mandatory.

Come on .

But it was fun and more fan friendly...you saw faces, grins, sooooo much better. I love to ride without a helmet.

No radios, no power-meters, I'm all for it.

But again, there are bigger fishes to fry, doping of course, and this IMO can only happen by having a retirement system, some benefits that take care of retired riders and be denied due to being busted. C and D samples tested 10 and 15 years later...et caetera...

 

[Netserk]

Don't you agree? Racing was better in the period before than it has been (generally) since, especially so in GTs. Riders attacked a lot more without helmets on them.

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Don't you agree? Racing was better in the period before than it has been (generally) since, especially so in GTs. Riders attacked a lot more without helmets on them.

True. The same can be said about American Football: take away the helmets, and the sport would probably be safer...and as far as cycling is concerned, there were not many big injuries without helmets. They played it safe, except for the nutjobs and...Eddy.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got your dates from

Help me here, I need it, but I'm not sure what in that data I presented you are challenging: as others have pointed out, we are showing the same thing, you with dates, me with detail.

As you seem to be doubling down on your claim that Di Rocco and Pelaez were VPs to McQuaid at the same time are we to take it that that is your issue with them currently serving under Lappartient? Or do you have a different reason for why their presence is problematic? Could your view, perhaps, be coloured by criticisms levelled by a defeated and demoralised Cookson at one of the pair?

“It’s come down to politics and deals. I’m very surprised when you look at the results from the election for the management committee, at some of the people who were ignored, or who scored very lowly. I think you see someone like Renato di Rocco, whose contribution has been entirely negative over the last four years, who is one of the highest scorers. He has already been very critical of me apparently but frankly his influence on the management committee over the last four years has been entirely negative. Unfortunately Renato has decided he is against me and that appears to be something which aided and abetted this result."

(Di Rocco's most public beef with Cookson over the last four years was, if I recall correctly, the handling of the Astana situation in 2015, when Cookson ignored his Management Committee and unilaterally called for the team's licence to be withdrawn. Given the presence of Vincenzo Nibali on the team and given ties between Di Ricco's Italian federation and Astana's Kazakhstani one, Di Rocco disagreeing with Cookson was hardly a surprise.)

Finally, to repeat the question I asked earlier: if not these, then who? Is there anyone on the Management Committee who would, in your humble opinion, be fit for the role of Vice President?

It's really not that complicated. Simply if you wanted to be a new credible President, why would you choose two second in commands who were also second in command for who many view as a less-credible president with McQuaid, especially when McQuaid seems to have endorsed your campaign, yet you at the same time, try and distance yourself from him? It's either coincidence, or it is hypcrytical. Italian cycling is on its knees with lack of success, lack of a single World Tour team and almost every rider who ever achieved anything of note now has a doping violation and Di Rocco was and still is the head of that situation throughout all of it. Why would you want him watching your back as UCI President while trying to introduce credibility to cycling after Cookson?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

It's really not that complicated. Simply if you wanted to be a new credible President, why would you choose two second in commands who were also second in command for who many view as a less-credible president with McQuaid, especially when McQuaid seems to have endorsed your campaign, yet you at the same time, try and distance yourself from him? It's either coincidence, or it is hypcrytical. Italian cycling is on its knees with lack of success, lack of a single World Tour team and almost every rider who ever achieved anything of note now has a doping violation and Di Rocco was and still is the head of that situation throughout all of it. Why would you want him watching your back as UCI President while trying to introduce credibility to cycling after Cookson?

Oh sam, you offer so much amusement. Like the way you casually drop the concurrence argument and walk away from it, head high, hands in pockets, whistling airily, figuring no one will notice. It's not worth a comment from you?

You talk of credibility. Cookson beat McQuaid by 24 votes to 18. That tells you that, even at the height of the storm, McQuaid retained considerable credibility within the UCI electorate, within that body of people responsible for deciding who makes it on to the Management Committee, that body of people who get to define the pool from which the new Vice Presidents are elected by their colleagues.

Now if you really want to discuss credibility, let's talk about the third man, Azzam, the man you have chosen not to criticise and who - one could therefore surmise - you approve of as a VP. He was one of Cookson's Veeps, wasn't he? And Cookson's credibility - what was the score again, 37 - 8? Not even half the number of votes of his predecessor.

But one shouldn't just look to the VP career of Azzam. He's been the on-again off-again president of the Egyptian fed since 1988: great job he's done there, right, especially compared to Italy? And he's been president of the African confed since 2005 - wasn't it the African confed was the centre of an exposé in L'Équipe about jollies for votes, Hein Verbruggen funding their AGM in that ancient African city of Rome the year he handed over to McQuaid?

L'Equipe added to the mud bath by reporting that a trip by McQuaid to Egypt earlier in 2005 was an attempt to secure African votes - seven out of forty-two - in the election. The paper reported claims by Amada Diallo of Burkina Faso that bribes were paid to ensure that the African confederation elections went in favour of the Egyptian candidate. According to Diallo, "With Azzam [the Egyptian candidate] he [Verbruuggen] could pick the delegates to help him at the vote." L'Equipe also questioned why the African confederation's annual meeting had been moved to Rome, with all expenses paid by the UCI.

It strikes me as odd that you have so little to say about Azzam - and, honestly, I could say a lot more about the man, but the libel laws mean it would have to be done privately - and yet you are so critical of a man who once served 12 months as one of McQuaid's VPs and another who served four years. Why is that? Did the Cookson years wash away the stain, just like a flake of soap powder in a urine sample?

One more time I'm going to ask you the question I've already put to you twice: we know the pool of 'talent' Lappartient's three VPs were chosen from - who among them is worthy, in your humble and informed opinion, who among them would not receive from you the scorn you save for Di Rocco and Pelaez?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Well at least his selfies look better than the other fella's did

Truly honoured to meet IOC President Thomas Bach and share the UCI's vision for the future of #cycling within the @Olympics Movement

Compare and contrast:

 

[Huapango]

Re:

I don't think we'll see many changes until next year, in regards to motor checks, but may come as soon as cyclocross (or motorcross). I think Lappartient won the election by so many votes because of what he wants to do in terms of motorized doping. I'm looking forward to the next season, more than I have in a long time.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

I don't think we'll see many changes until next year, in regards to motor checks, but may come as soon as cyclocross (or motorcross). I think Lappartient won the election by so many votes because of what he wants to do in terms of motorized doping. I'm looking forward to the next season, more than I have in a long time.

I'm not particularly- he won't do anything different when push comes to shove. I do think the recent catch was a warning shot to stop but everyone in the UCI realises the ramifications of a top rider being caught out with a motor.
Its possible a few more cat 3 riders and token (no sponsors etc) cyclo cross riders will get done but after that it'll be as you were.

 

[Huapango]

Re: Re:

I don't think we'll see many changes until next year, in regards to motor checks, but may come as soon as cyclocross (or motorcross). I think Lappartient won the election by so many votes because of what he wants to do in terms of motorized doping. I'm looking forward to the next season, more than I have in a long time.

I'm not particularly- he won't do anything different when push comes to shove. I do think the recent catch was a warning shot to stop but everyone in the UCI realises the ramifications of a top rider being caught out with a motor.
Its possible a few more cat 3 riders and token (no sponsors etc) cyclo cross riders will get done but after that it'll be as you were.

I think this time will be different. I find it strange how Kwiatkowski is all of the sudden "fighting fatigue" and downplaying his GT ambitions, despite rolling along like a freight train all year.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see if any major changes happen next year with the previous years' major contenders.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I do think the recent catch was a warning shot to stop

A warning shot from whom?

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

I don't think we'll see many changes until next year, in regards to motor checks, but may come as soon as cyclocross (or motorcross). I think Lappartient won the election by so many votes because of what he wants to do in terms of motorized doping. I'm looking forward to the next season, more than I have in a long time.

I'm not particularly- he won't do anything different when push comes to shove. I do think the recent catch was a warning shot to stop but everyone in the UCI realises the ramifications of a top rider being caught out with a motor.
Its possible a few more cat 3 riders and token (no sponsors etc) cyclo cross riders will get done but after that it'll be as you were.

I think this time will be different. I find it strange how Kwiatkowski is all of the sudden "fighting fatigue" and downplaying his GT ambitions, despite rolling along like a freight train all year.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see if any major changes happen next year with the previous years' major contenders.

This recent catch is nothing to be excited about, it was down to Bassons carrying out due diligence as race director. The UCI had nothing to do with such a small local race.

 

[Robert5091]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-pledges-to-ban-corticosteroids-from-beginning-of-2019/

New UCI president David Lappartient has said that he wants to prohibit the therapeutic use exemptions for corticosteroids in competition from the beginning of 2019. Corticosteroids are currently permitted when a rider is in possession of a TUE, though the member teams of the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC) are already signed up to additional, voluntary rules that bar their riders from competing while holding a TUE for corticosteroids.

(nothing 'bout Tramadol)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-repeats-call-for-wada-to-prohibit-corticosteroids-and-tramadol/

The Movement for Credible Cycling has reiterated its calls for the World Anti-Doping Agency to prohibit the use of corticosteroids and tramadol in competition. In an open letter to WADA director general Olivier Niggli, the MPCC has decried WADA's inaction over the use of corticosteroids and the painkiller tramadol, with the refrain "What are you waiting for?!" repeated on no fewer than five occasions.

Letter to WADA at http://www.mpcc.fr/pdf/17.10.05 Eng Open Letter to WADA.pdf
also includes -

I take this opportunity to ask questions about judicial consequences of the PUERTO case? What is WADA’s point of view?

Edit - add http://inrng.com/2017/10/nudge-theory-tramadol-cortisone-wada-uci-mpcc/#more-32394 also out today about the same topic.